I think from what I understood, that he had his assessment prior to his hospitalisation, and just received the results of that while in hospital - whether they filled in the correct paperwork for him once in hospital is another matter. I think the point they were making is that at the time of the assessment he was so ill with the stress that it caused him to be hospitalised - calling into question his assessment.

I thought both programmes covered some good points, but felt there were still some areas that weren't mentioned - for instance the fact that the WCA is not fit for for purpose as it does neglect certain conditions that make it impossible or near impossible to work, though they did mention certain cancer treatments that don't count. There are no descriptors for incapacitating bowel disorders which cause pain and chronic diarrhea (unless you also have incontinenece). no descriptors that encompass chronic fatigue syndrome or fybromyalgia (unless they cause mobility problems) or other illness like MS or lung problems that cause severe fatigue issues making work impossible. There was no mention of problems that cause pain but do not relate to mobility - for instance, someone with a brain tumour might suffer chronic and debilitating headaches that are impossible to work with, but wouldn't fit the criteria. There was just a small mention that conditions which would be made worse by working should qualify for the support group - but this is very rarely taken into account by ATOS or by the DWP decision makers. And that's before you even start on the problems with the mental health descriptors and way of assessing them. In my opinion the gaps in descriptors amount to disability discrimination in that certain people with disabilities are being discriminated against in not even being considered for ESA. I have to say that Chris Grayling made me so angry that I had to pause the TV and rant for bit to my husband. And when Grayling mentioned 'tough love' I was nearly apoplectic. And as for blaming tribunal judges for allowing appeals - like they're soft touches who take one look at an appellant and cave in and give them the points!! had he ever been to a tribunal, he would see that the amount of information that the Tribunal panel can get from a person in a relatively short space of time, without the benefit an idiotic computer system, puts ATOS to shame. The Tribunal actually ask questions relevant to the descriptors, and they look at other evidence, and they actually listen to the appellant - and if the appellant gets the right info across and backs it up with evidence, and that info fits in with descriptors, then the appellant will score points and win their appeal. Its despicable that Grayling would lay the blame at the tribunals where the blame firmly lies with ATOS' method of assessment. The most damning thing for me was the undercover doctor who said he did 8 assessments and only awarded points according the descriptors and his clinical judgement - and in half the cases he was overuled! He wasn't suggesting that they gave people benefit outside of the descriptors - he was working within them and was still overuled, which suggests to me that there are 'red flag' conditions that they are reluctant to score points on, and I suspect that back pain would be one of them, and there are probably others. i also would bet that if the amount of people put into the support group by an assessor was less than than the 'average' that there wouldn't be an intervention by a superviser - only if they are above 'average'.

Just keep it simple. By asking for an explanation of the decision and a breakdown, you will be extendeding the time limit you have to appeal the overpayment decision if you need to. Don't make any admissions and don't make any accusations. Be specific about what information you want to know - ie a week by week explanation of how your income and the overpayment has been calculated. they may have calculated it correctly, but they may not have - its always worth checking.

Yes the ESA WP issue is a worrying one. I have a spinal problem which means I can't sit without pain for 20 mins and can't stand for more than about 10 mins. However, were it not for some other health problems which put me in the support group, the fact of not being able to stand or sit would not have exempted me from the WP - but there would be no way I would physically be able to take part. There must be lots more people on ESA who will be expected to take part in the WP, but physically or mentally won't be able to comply - I wonder what will happen to these people - will they be sanctioned or will discretion be used? The OP's situation seems to suggest that discretion is in short supply where the WP is concerned.

First you need advice to ensure that the overpayment has been calculated correctly. Write to the LA and ask for a breakdown of how the overpayment has been calculated (ie, have they included the correct amounts and correct tax credit details). Once you've done this then you can contact your DMP provider to see how you can manage repayment.

Totally agree. There should be penalties for ATOS in particular if an appeal is won, and there should be details of overturned decisions in appraisals to help advisers improve their work. Having worked for the DWP, there was never any comeback if a decision was overturned on appeal - the adviser often wouldn't know the case had been appealled. In my experience (not sure if this is a rule), where there is an appeal, the reassessment seems to be set a year after the orginal assessment. I've seen people with appeal delays having their new WCA before the appeal.

No we were talking about two different things. I was referring to decisions made by a Tribunal not affecting the reassessment timetable and Hensteeth was objecting on the grounds that she made an appeal and then the reassessment timetable was changed. Hensteeth's decision was made by the DWP who do have the authority to set a new reassessment date, whereas Tribunals are only able to offer an advisory. In fact the ATOS reassessment date is also only an advisory, but sadly is accepted without question in most cases by the DWP DM - unless further info is presented to the dM when an appeal is made which causes the whole eligibility decision to be reassessed before getting to a Tribunal. Apologies for not making myself clear - sadly illness has somewhat diminished my mental faculties.

There is a sticky on ESA medicals - you might find it helpful.

Pension Credit section are tricky buggers. Your best bet is to take all the info, put it in a detailed letter with any photocopies of anything you've sent in (ie copies of claim, forms etc) and see your MP and ask them to contact the DWP. In my experience this wll usually get a response. Make sure on the letter you explain exactly what you want to happen: - A full written explanation of the suspension or 'inhibition. - In writing, what you need to provide to de-suspend your claim. if this is not possible, then you require a decision that you can appeal. - A copy of everything they have received in relation to your claim. You may have to do a SAR to get this. You will also want to contact your bank to check that they received and forwarded the MI12 forms, and put any info the bank gives you about dates the forms were sent in the letter. i'm a bit rusty, so there may be other stuff you can do to get things moving, but that's what I can think of at the moment.

I said that because at present this is what happens. Any recommendation the Tribunals Service make on reassessment is advisory only and holds no weight of law. I'm not saying this is right - in fact I strongly disagree with it. Yes of course ATOS got it wrong - their assessment is designed to get as little useful information as possible, designed to be able to make the maximum number of assumptions about your capabilities as possible, and designed NOT to ask questions that would elicit the required information in order to pass the assessment. Most people attending the WCA have no idea how it is designed and think it is simple information seeking excercise in order to make a decision, when in fact it is more like a loophole seeking exercise to deny as many people benefit as possible. It appears to me that you made some assumptions about how I felt about ATOS from what was a simple statement of fact. We can do everything we can to lobby to try and change or improve the system, but until then its important that the word gets out about how to handle these assessments in order to get the vital information about the individual's capabilities across, and ensure that each assessment is taped so that the assessor cannot be creative about the answers that were given.

The assessment date is set when your original WCA decision is made, and at present appeal decisions do not affect the reassessment time frame.

You fail the WCA on the date the decision is made - not the date of the assessment.

It seems to me that the work program is not really about helping people, but getting as many people off of JSA as possible - either by sanctioning. forcing into inappropriate 'work experience' that won't stick (and takes the jobs of others), or making people so anxious that they eventually claim esa ending up on a merry-go round. The majority of those on JSA would love a real job. they would love the opportunity for real training and education to improve their prospects, rather than the waste of time that is the work program. People who are getting sanctioned are often the most vulnerable, unable to stick up for themselves and with the legal aid bill, will have nowhere to go for help to sort things out or appeal these sanctions. My advice: invest in a covert recording device and have no contact with the advisers or DWP without recording the conversation. A small outlay to start with, but may protect your benefit if unjustly sanctioned.

What planet do you live on? Training as a solicitor plus postgraduate courses is very expensive, and the fact that you bring this up as an example shows you have little understanding of the realities for the poor. When designing a welfare state, it is important to understand that not everyone is born with the same genetics, intelligence, abilities, opportunities or family support. The way one person deals with a poor upbringing therefore is different to another, to say nothing of those that win big in the family they are born into and the abilities they have. Imagine you had a poor education and struggle with the basics - maths, english etc. You're 18 years old and limited to manual jobs because of this. You're a good person, eager to work - but there are 50-100 people going for every job you apply for, and no funding for practical training. If you're living at home then at least you have a roof over your head, but what if you have to leave home - either due to abuse, bad family circumstances, or because there is no work where you live? With no state support what options are open to you? Sometimes giving some support early on , can make all the difference later. This person given housing benefit and JSA when they move south gets a job after about 6 months in logistics. Despite their problems with basic skills, they work hard, and show a talent for organising and supervising. 40 years on and they have been working ever since and paying taxes, productive and with a family that now has better opportunities than she had. This same person, given no support, forced to leave home due to abuse, finds living on the street preferable to the torment at home. She can't get a job and turns to crime or prostitution to make ends meet, possibly with drug or alcohol issues. Ends up dead, in prison, or living a very poor existence due to an awful welfare system and charities that have had their funding cut. I was lucky. At 17 I had to leave home due to abuse. I got help with housing benefit and income support while I finished my A-levels - it wasn't much £25 a week for a bedsit with mould up the walls, and £30 a week income support for living and travel expenses. I went to university and became a productive member of society. If I hadn't had this help, who knows what would have happened to me. Even with this help, I suspect others would have had more difficulties - it was emotionally and psychologically hard. I hate this current sink or swim culture that seems to assume that everyone is equal in abilities, drive, and has the capacity to do well in all circumstances. Some people need help - they didn't have a secure upbinging in good schools and weren't taught 'good values'. Some don't have the innate abilities to get themselves out of a poor upbringing or bad education. Capitalism seems to mean 'everyone for themselves' and 'the poor should be grateful for the scraps we throw them'. Anyone tried to live as a young single person in a manky bedsit on JSA? - it is not a 'lifestyle choice', I assure you. Unfortunately it appears we're devolving as a species - money and greed is king, and those with most want to impose a 'morality requirement' before they'll help the least well off. My point being that you have no idea how that individual has come to be the way they are, you have no idea even whether they are 'trying' or 'not trying', or what personal circumstances led to a situation. Did the young single mother used to be in relationship, and was abandoned? Does that make a difference to how you think or her? What if she has a child because she was raped and didn't have an abortion, are we going to be asking this question on the applications? What if she was using contraception but it failed? Of course she can't offer proof can she. What if the guy with 6 children had a fantastic job and then looses it or becomes sick or disabled - is our judgement different then? What about if the person has mild learning dificulties, or high functioning autism - just not quite bad enough to be considered disabled. Unless the government is prepared to interview each individual applicant, do a detailed history and background check, how do they know if that person is deserving or not. And who the hell has the right to decide and judge anyway. I'm an optimist. I believe that in reality there is only a small percentage of people wantonly playing the system as a lifestyle choice, and that its a small price to pay to ensure that everyone is able to eat and have a roof over their heads. Some may have plenty of money, but they're short on compassion and an understanding of how others live.

Many thanks for the help, everyone, I'll be going ahead with the challenge.

Google streetview has cars parked over the partially tarmaced lines in question, so wouldn't help much, I'm afaid. They said the lines were obvious and legal. Which I believe the photos show clearly they are not, and show obvious tarmac over part of the yellow lines,.

Not trying to be difficult, but as the street is the one I live on, I'd rather not give that much personal information unless absolutely necessary - does the exact street have relevance?. The photos are very clear of the lines in question.

gentle bump any help appreciated

Hi, thanks for responding. It is in Milton Keynes. One side of the street (the side I was parked) is no restricted parking. The other side of the street has a single yellow line restricted no parking 8-6 Mon to sat. At either end of the street are double yellow lines in order to restrict parking too close to the junction. Lisa

[ATTACH=CONFIG]35687[/ATTACH] [ATTACH=CONFIG]35686[/ATTACH] [ATTACH=CONFIG]35685[/ATTACH] I have a PCN from parking partially on the non obvious double yellow lines shown above. The lines look as if they have been partially tarmaced over, therefore everyone in the street assumes that part no longer applies. I wouldn't and have never parked on the obvious yellow lines which are there due to a junction. I'd appreciate opinion on whether I have a case (the council rejected the initial challenge, even with photographs), and also information on what regs to quote to support my case. Many thanks for your help. Lisa